Plato's The Apology Part I

Abstract: Plato's account of Socrates' defense
elucidates some main principles of the Socratic philosophy: (1)
the Socratic paradox, (2) the Socratic method, (3) tending ones
soul, and (4) death is not to be feared.

At the heart of this question is the Socratic Problem:
since Socrates apparently wrote nothing, his manner and
philosophy are subject to the controversy of conflicting
accounts. The historical problem of Socrates is omitted in
these notes. The presentation of the Socrates described by
Plato is assumed here in part because of Aristotle's
testimony that Socrates concerned himself with "the
excellences of character" and the attempt to find the
essences of ethical terms. Even so, how much of the thought in the
Socratic dialogues is Plato's is a matter of debate as well.

Summary of the charges against Socrates:

Impiety: he does not believe in the gods whom the state
believes in—he seeks natural explanations for natural
processes

He teaches people to disbelieve the gods—a charge
suggested in Aristophanes' play Clouds, Socrates
is portrayed as an atheist.

He corrupts the young; he infuses in them a spirit of
criticism—Socrates did attract attention from wealthy
young men in Athens as he cross-examined prominent citizens
in the marketplace. It's quite possible he occasionally
accepted some support from them. In his examination of
statesmen, poets, and artisans, he reveals that they
do not know what they claim to know. In any case, by his
questioning of authority, he had an effect on the young.

He is a wrongdoer; he speculates about the heaven and
things beneath the earth—perhaps this is the
basis of the charge of disbelief in the gods if Socrates
seeks natural explanations for astronomical and geological
phenomena rather than attributing natural events to the
gods. Early in his life Socrates apparently was interested
in science; later in life Socrates emphasized ethical and
epistemological inquiry.

He makes the weaker reason seem to be the
stronger—Socrates here is being accused of being a
sophist. Aristophanes' play Clouds some
thirty-five years earlier had portrayed Socrates as a
sophist.

Originally the sophists were known as the Seven
Sages of Greece, but later the term "sophist" was
applied in a derogatory sense to persons who made their living
teaching methods of wining lawsuits in the courts. Again,
Aristophanes' play had portrayed Socrates as a teacher or
rhetoric and astronomy.

The sophists were itinerate teachers who were the
encyclopædists, the polymaths, who knew a little about
everything—in general, they were skeptical with
regard to ethics and knowledge.

Unlike philosophers, they took payment for their
teaching and were accused of "corrupting the youth."
Brief examples of sophistical arguments include:

Your fourth finger is longer than your little
finger but shorter than your middle finger. Thus, a
finger is both long and short.

Here is proof that you are on the other side of
campus. Do you know where the Bell Tower is? Well,
then you know that you are on the other side of campus
from the Bell Tower.

Consider the well-known story of Euthalus and Protagoras.
Euthalus wanted to become a lawyer but could not pay Protagoras.
Protagoras agreed to teach him under the condition that
if Euathlus won his first case, he would pay Protagoras,
otherwise not. Euathlus agreed and finished his course of study
and but did enter the courts. Protagoras sued for his fee.

Protagoras argued: If Euathlus loses this case,
then he must pay (by the judgment of the court). If Euathlus
wins this case, then he must pay (by the terms of the
contract). He must either win or lose this case. Therefore
Euathlus must pay me.

But Euathlus had learned well the art of rhetoric. He
responded: "If I win this case, I do not have to pay
(by the judgment of the court). If I lose this case, I do
not have to pay (by the contract). I must either win or
lose the case. Therefore, I do not have to pay
Protagoras."

Socrates' understanding of himself is that life is not
worth living is he cannot choose what is right (c.f.,
the Socratic paradox.)

Socrates notes that he cannot change and improve his soul; hence,
if he went elsewhere, he would continue his questioning. Citizens
of other city-states would probably tolerate his questionings even
less well than his fellow Athenians. Undoubtedly, he would be
continually expelled or worse.

Undoubtedly the lack of compromise on principles by Socrates
led to the court condemning him to death by a greater margin than
when voting for his guilt.

Socrates claims that he is following the god's order to examine
his fellow citizens. Chærephon asked the Delphic Oracle if
there were any man living who was wiser than Socrates. The Oracle
answer was "No." Yet, Socrates did not see himself as being
wise, so through questioning of others, he realized the basis of
the Oracle's statement of his wisdom was that he knew that he
did not know and so his life mission was, in effect, to prove
the Oracle's assertion. (Cf., Socratic irony in Part II of
these notes.)

Socrates' answer to this charge, more than any other, exhibits
the courtroom tactics of a sophist. A.E. Taylor suggests that Socrates
does not take these charges seriously and exhibits the often
observed irony as he plays with his accusers.

Socrates states that the charge of corruption of
the youth is a "stock charge" against all philosophers. The charge
may well be common against sophists, but such a defense is
irrelevant to Socrates' situation. The relevant question is not
the ad hominem but is rather
whether or not the charge is true in this case.

Socrates professes ignorance: he states that he knows nothing
so how could he possibly teach the young people anything? If
somehow a young person were corrupted, then the corruption
was unintentional. Many commentators including A.E.
Taylor see Socrates' stance as part of the doctrine
"no one does evil volunta1rily." Yet, this is an odd
defense for Socrates to make, since, as a result of the Socratic Paradox, Socrates believes we
are morally responsible for knowledge or the lack thereof. An
unintentional action results from ignorance, and a person is
responsible for what is not known.

Finally, Socrates states the ad
ignorantiam argument that there is no one present testifying
that he was corrupted. In a court of law, of course, there is the
burden of proof on the prosecution, and evidence or testimony need
be offered for those charges. But from a logical point of view,
Socrates' argument is the ad ignorantiam fallacy:

No proof has been placed into evidence that anyone has been
corrupted.

--------------------------------------------------

Therefore, no one has been corrupted.

Socrates proposes the following dilemma:

If I drive away the young men, they will persuade their
parents to expel me.

If I allow them to stay, their fathers will expel me
[on account of the influence on their sons].

[Either I drive them away or I allow them to stay.]

------------------------------------------------------

Thus, either they will persuade their parents to expel me
or their fathers will expel me.

The use of the dilemma is in a sense a sophistic rhetorical
device which is effective in a courtroom but of little logical
significance. Let's spend a moment analyzing the dilemma. There
are three ways to refute a dilemma:

Take it by the horns: i.e., show that at least
one of the conditionals is false. For example, if Socrates
drives the young men away, it's unlikely they could induce
their parents to expel him.

Escape between the horns: i.e., show that the
disjunction is false. For example, Socrates could not control
whether or not the young men stay and listen.

Set up a counter-dilemma: negate the consequents of
the conditionals and switch them for new conditional statements.
Then draw the conclusion as in the following argument:

If I drive away the young men, their fathers will not expel
me.

If I do not drive them away, they won't persuade their
parents to expel me.

[Either I drive them away or I allow them to stay.]

------------------------------------------------------

Thus, either their fathers will not expel me or they
won't persuade their fathers to expel me.

First, Socrates simply points out the contradiction between
the two groups of accusers: he can't be an atheist and at the same
time believe in false gods. But, of course, this response does
not address the emotional effect of the charge of impiety.

Second, Socrates presents the linguistic argument that if he
believes in divine things, then he cannot be an atheist. Since
there is evidence for the antecedent of the conditional, the truth
of the consequent does follow.

Socrates does not address philosophical reasons for his belief
in the gods; he merely demonstrates the errors in the prosecution's
charges.

A number of statements in the Apology point to the
heart of the Socratic philosophy: the Socratic
Paradox.

Socrates states at the beginning of his defense: "Give
your whole attention to the question, is what I say just, or
is it not?"

He believes that you should only do what's right—irrespective
of matters of life or death. (Socrates later offers a proof
that no harm can come to a good person and death is not to be
feared.)

Your life should be spent on the improvement of your soul.

Socrates states, "[I]f I say again that daily to
discourse about virtue, and of those other things about
which you hear me examining myself and others, is the
greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not
worth living, you are still less likely to believe me."
(Apology, 38a, trans. Benjamin Jowlett).

The Socratic Paradox: People act immorally, but they do
not do so deliberately.

Everyone seeks what is most serviceable to oneself or what is
in ones own self-interest.

If one [practically] knows what is good, one will always
act in such manner as to achieve it. (Otherwise, one does not
know or only knows in a theoretical fashion.)

If one acts in a manner not conducive to ones
good, then that person must have been mistaken (i.e.,
that person lacks the knowledge of how to obtain what was
serviceable in that instance).

If one acts with knowledge then one will obtain that
which is serviceable to oneself or that which is in ones
self-interest.

Since no one knowingly harms himself, if harm comes to that
person, then that person must have acted in ignorance.

Consequently, it would seem to follow we are responsible for
what we know or for that matter what we do not know. So, then,
one is responsible for ones own happiness.

The essential aspect of understanding the Paradox is to
realize that Socrates is referring to the good of the soul in
terms of knowledge and doing what's right—not to
wealth or freedom from physical pain. The latter play no
role in the soul being centered.

Examples of the Paradox explained in practice.

Cheryl and her friend Holly, both twelve years old decide to
go to the movies. Cheryl, unlike her friend Holly, states
that she is eleven so that she will not have to pay the adult
admission and will have extra money for snacks. Holly refuses
to do so since her parents have told her that if she cannot
pay the admission of a twelve year old, then she doesn't have
enough money to go the movies.

Cheryl gives Holly some of her extra snacks as a way of
showing Holly that Holly made a foolish decision.

If we were to ask Cheryl if she made the right decision, she
would happily say, "Yes, of course!" If we were
to ask Holly if she made the right decision, Holly
would perhaps glumly say, "Yes, I did the right
thing."

Cheryl lacks knowledge of the longer-term effect on her
soul; Holly lacks knowledge of the rightness of following
her parents' advice.

Consider the effects of a choice like Cheryl's on her soul
in the longer term. She might…

Lack an authentic self: Compare Cheryl's
development of different personalities for different
people to Socrates' being the same before the court as he
was in the marketplace.

Seek an edge: What becomes fair to Cheryl are those
circumstances where she has an advantage. Cheryl comes to
believe a level playing field is unfair to her. She does
not interact unless she has an advantage.

Consequently feel guilt or even pride: Cheryl
came to believe that she is better or smarter than other
people because she can play by different
rules. In other cases, some persons like Cheryl might
feel guilt for not doing the right thing.

Reject conditions for fair-treatment: At the age of fourteen,
when Cheryl was asked for evidence of her age by a movie
ticket-seller she became angry, saying, "I was admitted
last week as child—you just don't get a whole year
older in one week!"

Lose confidence or self-esteem: Cheryl learns
to only feel comfortable when she has an advantage. Without an
advantage, she feels at a loss.

Be left to improvise in new situations: By cutting corners or seeking
the advantage, in new situations, the soul is out of balance
because of the attempt to avoid being treated as others
are. As Sir
Walter Scott wrote,

"O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!"

Have a soul not centered: By having to foresee
future circumstances dependent upon what she has done in
the past, her attention becomes scattered among calculating
different scenarios.

A gadfly is a fly that stings or annoys livestock; hence one that
acts as a provocative stimulus.

Socrates is trying to arouse drowsy, apathetic people to realize
that they do not know themselves and do not know what they claim
to know. Socrates' cross-examination of the some of the prominent
citizens undoubtedly led to prejudice against him.

Consider Plato's dialogue the Theætetus as
an example of Socrates' stinging: he questions Theætetus, a
well-known mathematician, as to the nature of knowledge.

Theætetus explains knowledge as perception. (Protagoras had
argued that "Man is the measure of all things.")

If that be so, Socrates asks, how Protagoras can rank his
knowledge over that of other men.

If knowledge were the same as perception, then hearing a
foreign language would be the same as understanding it.

We can perceive without knowing what we are
perceiving. Note Figure 1 the well-known duck-rabbit
figure from Gestalt psychology or Figure 2 Norwood Russell
Hanson's "bear climbing a tree."

If knowledge were the same as perception, as soon as we
cease to perceive, then we would cease to know—but
this is not the case.

We can know some things without perceiving them (i.e.,
truths of mathematics, a telephone number).

Theætetus' second attempt: knowledge is true opinion.

Socrates' objection: an opinion can be true without involving
knowledge—the opinion might just be coincidental with the
truth

Consider a murderer on trial: In the face of inadequate
evidence the jury might vote "guilty," and by luck, the opinion
turns out to be correct. Even so, we would not say the jury
had knowledge at the time they returned their verdict.

Theætetus' third attempt: knowledge is true opinion plus
explanation or an account. I.e., if something cannot be
analyzed, it cannot be known.

Socrates notes if explanation means analyzing into elements
of differentia, then we cannot have knowledge, for the results of
analysis are themselves unanalyzable.

Therefore, the unknowable is reduced to what cannot be known.

The final result of the dialogue is not a completely a negative
result because Socrates has shown by implication that knowledge
must somehow involve the intelligent grasping of the structure and
relationships of a thing.

Notes on Plato's Apology are continued in Part II of these notes. Part II emphasizes
Socrates' response to the verdict.

Further Reading:

Apology: An
excellent discussion and introduction to the historical background and the
life and character of Socrates at the Classics Technology Center
provided by AbleMedia Curriculum Guides.

Famous
Trials: The Trial of Socrates 399 BC. An extensive examination of
various interpretations of the trial by Douglas Linder. Chronology, maps,
images, bibliography, historical background as well as accounts from Lætius, Plato,
Xenophon, and Aristophanes are included. Especially interesting is
an interview with I.F. Stone on why Socrates was put to death.

“You are mistaken, my friend, if you think that a man who is worth
anything ought to spend his time weighing up the prospects of life and
death. He has only one thing to consider in performing any action—that
is, whether he is acting rightly or wrongly, like a god man or a bad
one.” Plato, Socrates' Defense (Apology) trans. Hugh Tredennick in
Plato: The Collected Dialogues (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1961), 28b.